Skip to content

Can we require protocols to support unlinkable revocation? #280

@johannhof

Description

@johannhof

@martinthomson voiced concerns about unlinkable revocation methods such as Cryptographic Accumulators being widely applicable enough to make them part of the protocol registry inclusion criteria for privacy.

I don't have enough practical experience on this topic to decide - so I'm opening this issue for discussion.

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

No one assigned

    Labels

    privacy-trackerGroup bringing to attention of Privacy, or tracked by the Privacy Group but not needing response.registryregistry related

    Type

    No type
    No fields configured for issues without a type.

    Projects

    Status
    In Progress

    Milestone

    No milestone

    Relationships

    None yet

    Development

    No branches or pull requests

    Issue actions